Re: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009

Thanks. I had already worked around the issue by looking at the page 
with MSIE 6

Luca

Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
> Here's a temporary fix for the FireFox problem where it can't 
> understand entities in XHTML Basic 1.1 documents...
>  
> Where you have FF installed in a directory/folder called (for example) 
> "Mozilla Firefox", look for a sub-sub-directory called "Mozilla 
> Firefox/res/dtd" wherein you will find a file called "xhtml11.dtd"
>  
> Copy this file to one called "xhtml-basic11.dtd" in the same 
> directory. Now refresh the page that caused you the problem.
>  
> This enables FF to recognise any XHTML 1.1 entities in XHTML Basic 1.1 
> documents.
>  
> Hope this helps.
>  
> ---Rotan.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Rotan Hanrahan
> *Sent:* Tue 13/01/2009 12:47
> *To:* Luca Passani
> *Cc:* public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009
>
> :)
>  
> The document is valid. But it is XHTML Basic 1.1, which is new, and 
> not "well known" to FF, which unfortunately doesn't process external 
> DTDs, so it mis-parses the document, and then having missed the entity 
> defs in the referenced DTD it breaks when it sees something it didn't 
> expect (but should have expected, if it was processing the DTD). In 
> this case the DTD is http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic11.dtd
>  
> This is my understanding of the problem.
>  
> Perhaps the FF insiders can give a better explanation.
>  
> This shows that fragility is not just in the creation of "better 
> quality" markup, but also in its consumption. An adaptive solution 
> would know about browser weaknesses and work around them pragmatically.
>  
> ---Rotan.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Luca Passani
> *Sent:* Tue 13/01/2009 12:20
> *To:* public-bpwg-ct
> *Subject:* Re: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009
>
> Please pardon my jumping into an old thread, but this is funny, because 
> the point I was making in my post one-week old post below just 
> materialised in front of me on the W3C website:
>
> http://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG/2009/01/05/best_practices_to_develop_mobile_web_app
>
> here is what I am getting (Firefox):
>
> XML Parsing Error: undefined entity
> Location: 
> http://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG/2009/01/05/best_practices_to_develop_mobile_web_app
> Line Number 42, Column 518:            Comment from: pravin [Visitor] <a 
> href="http://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG?disp=msgform&amp;comment_id=4005&amp;post_id=998&amp;redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-mit.w3.org%2F2005%2F06%2Fblog%2FBPWGBlog.php%3Fblog%3D8%26title%3Dbest_practices_to_develop_mobile_web_app%26posts%3D3%26page%3D1%26more%3D1%26c%3D1%26pb%3D1%26disp%3Dsingle" 
> title="Send email to comment author"><img 
> src="http://www.w3.org/blog/rsc/icons/envelope.gif" width="13" 
> height="10"  class="middle" title="Send email to comment author" 
> alt="Email"/></a>  &middot; <a 
> href="http://localhost/wurfl/wurfl_php.php" 
> rel="nofollow">http://localhost/wurfl/wurfl_php.php</a>            </div>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is honorable that W3C tries to eat its own dogfood, but, as I was 
> saying, XHTML breaks way too easily to be viable for the big web. The 
> risk that someone somewhere injects a poisonous entity into your site is 
> just too high....
>
> Luca
>
> Luca Passani wrote:
> >
> > Tom Hume wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Luca Passani wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> >  sean: Sometimes there's content for high-end phones tagged as
> >>>>> >  "mobile" that may not work on a low-end phone. We already have a
> >>>>> >  method for keeping proxies away from content, "no-transform"
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>> Which bit of Seans comment do you disagree with here Luca?
> >>> I disagree with the idea that who runs the network feels entitled to 
> >>> know better than those who created the application and owns the 
> >>> copyright. Can I?
> >>
> >> Course you can :) I don't see any assertion to the contrary in the 
> >> comment from Sean that you quoted.
> >
> > Sean's comment reveals that Novarra feels entitled to reformat mobile 
> > content to make it better (for their definition of better). I disagree 
> > with that notion. What's your problem?
> >
> >>
> >>> While I'm here, it still does not make sense that the XHTML MIME 
> >>> type is not accepted as an indication that a site is mobile. This is 
> >>> the situation with 99%+ of the content out there 
> >>> (application/xml+xhtml == MOBILE), so there you have a perfectly 
> >>> simple and effective way to detect mobile.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is not universally true though - you and I discussed this back 
> >> in March last year on my blog posting at
> >>
> >>     http://www.tomhume.org/2008/03/guidelines-for.html
> >>
> >> Where Russ Beattie popped up to point out that whilst this MIME type 
> >> is a decent heuristic (and it's noted as such in CT), it's not absolute. 
> >
> > OK, so, since your ask for it, I will repeat all the arguments here 
> > (and by the way, Russ wrote that comment when he was still trying to 
> > make Mowser fly, so he was heavily biased at the time).
> >
> > The XHTML Mime type can be used  for web content only theoretically. 
> > In practice nobody uses that MIME type for full-web content simply 
> > because it would break way too easily on all browsers (save-as dialog 
> > for MSIE users, catastrophic error messages and no content at all for 
> > Firefox, Opera and Mozilla). Nobody uses XHTML for full web content, 
> > not even those who think they are using XHTML (somewhere they'll be 
> > doing something which will make all browsers reverse to quicks mode 
> > and consider their xhtmllish mark-up as nothing more than tag-soup).
> > Because of this, application/xml+xhtml is an excellent heuristics to 
> > detect mobile content (the only place where the MIME type is adopted).
> > Now, I can understand that W3C would find the idea of accepting that 
> > MIME type as an indicator of mobile content embarassing (it could be 
> > read as the admission that XHTML did not go very far on the web). On 
> > the other hand, this is not my problem and it is simply not OK to 
> > discard application/xml+xhtml  as a good heuristics for CTG because 
> > the following holds in virtually all cases:
> >
> >     application/xml+xhtml  => mobile content
> >
> > Luca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 13:53:41 UTC